State v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 09 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 42950,42950,2 |
| Parties | STATE v. ANDERSON |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Esco V. Kell, West Plains, for appellant.
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., and Will F. Berry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
Appellant, John D. Anderson, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Howell county, Missouri, of the crime of larceny of a motor vehicle and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years. He appealed to this court and submitted his case on an abbreviated transcript of the record made in the trial of the case.
Since appellant did not file a transcript of the evidence, we are not able to make a statement of the facts proven at the trial.
Appellant briefed the following points: First, alleged error on the part of the trial court in permitting the State to endorse on the information the name of G. H. Parker. Defendant says he was not given sufficient time to produce witnesses to contradict the evidence of this witness. Second, alleged the trial court erred in excluding evidence tending to prove that defendant had been declared insane. Third, error in permitting the State to show other crimes independent of the crime charged in this case. Fourth, error in permitting the prosecuting attorney to make the statement in his argument, 'why didn't defendant bring on the other two doctors to testify for him.' Fifth, that he should have been committed to a state hospital for the insane because on a trial of another offense he had been found 'not guilty by reason of insanity.'
As to the first point, the record shows that before trial on October 9, 1951, the prosecuting attorney asked permission to endorse the name of G. H. Parker on the information. Defendant objected on the ground that Parker lived in Memphis, Tennessee, and as we learn from the discussion between the attorneys and the trial judge, Parker was a witness to a written statement made by the appellant after his arrest in Memphis. The attorney for the defendant stated he wished to take the deposition of the other witnesses who were present at the time the statement was made. The record further shows that the court announced that Memphis was about 195 miles from West Plains, the place of the trial, and that the Frisco railroad and Highway 63 connected West Plains with Memphis. The court offered to postpone the case until Cotober 26. The prosecuting attorney offered to waive notice of the taking of depositions. The court then asked the attorney for the defendant the following question: 'Do you care to take time Mr. Kell to get the depositions?' The attorney answered, 'I think for the reasons claimed in the record I won't have time to take the depositions and I will go to trial as it is.' No showing was made, and we can conceive of no reason, that seventeen days would not have been sufficient time for the defendant's attorney to take depositions of the witnesses. It is apparent that the point must be ruled against the defendant.
The record fails to support appellant's contention that the trial court excluded any competent evidence to show that he was insane at the time the alleged offense was committed. In the argument, appellant referred to Exhibits D, H, I, and J which he says were not admitted in evidence. These exhibits are in the record. The ruling of the court as to their admission or rejection is not shown. Neither does the record show what, if any, objection was made by the state. Exhibit D purports to be a verdict of a jury finding John D. Anderson not guilty by reason of insanity. The record fails to show when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Murray, 44258
...and, of course, the allegation in the motion is not self-proving. State v. Henderson, 356 Mo. 1072, 204 S.W.2d 774; State v. Anderson, Mo., 254 S.W.2d 638. The assignment in (2) avove refers to the following statement of the prosecutor: 'Now, there hasn't been one bit of evidence here to re......
-
State ex rel. Lamar v. Impey
...becomes insane after conviction, he may be sent to an institution provided for such persons. See Section 549.040, V.A.M.S.; State v. Anderson, Mo., 254 S.W.2d 638, loc. cit. 640(9, 10); 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, Sec. 940, p. It is evident that the question of Horner's sanity can be determine......
-
State v. Poucher
...The transcript of record contains only the closing argument on the part of the State so we may not consider the assignments. State v. Anderson, Mo., 254 S.W.2d 638; Hall v. Brookshire, Mo.App., 285 S.W.2d 60. It may be said, however, that the statements of which complaint has been made appe......
-
State v. Barron
...record, and even though the motion for new trial was verified by appellant's counsel, it does not necessarily prove itself. State v. Anderson, Mo., 254 S.W.2d 638; State v. White, Mo., 301 S.W.2d 827. There was no other evidence of its occurrence. However, in any event, at the time appellan......